Why We Opposed Extension Of Section 4 Of Sosma

---

 



MP SPEAKS | The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 or popularly known as Sosma is essentially a procedural law. It seeks to regulate a criminal trial of an offender being charged for serious crimes such as terrorism.
If one is charged for crimes that are not security-related in nature, he or she is normally tried under the ordinary piece of procedural legislation, such as the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
Unlike Sosma, the CPC is not draconian and repressive legislation.
Recently, the home minister sought to extend the application of Section 4(5) of Sosma.
In a nutshell, Subsection 5 empowers the police to detain any Sosma detainee for a period of 28 days for the purpose of completing the investigation.
One may ask what is the problem then? Certainly, it is a problematic section. It gives enormous powers to the police.
As Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Simply put, the very section endorses prolonged police custody of any Sosma detainee without the need to obtain an order from any court of law.
Yes, it is against the black letters as well as the spirit of the highest law of the land, namely the Federal Constitution.
Unfortunately, Sosma trumps the apex law. It makes it a dangerous piece of legislation.
By virtue of Subsection 11 of Section 4, there is an expiry date of the application of Section 4(5 ).
In legal jargon, the legal fraternity calls such a provision a sunset clause.
Since the application of Section 4(5) of such a repressive law was about to expire, the unmandated government tabled a motion in Parliament in order to have it extended for another five years.
On the strength of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by the government and Pakatan Harapan respectively, the home minister falsely believed that the motion would undergo a smooth sailing in Parliament. Fortunately, he was dead wrong!
We - the Harapan MPs - and almost all of the opposition MPs who were present in Parliament that day vehemently rejected the motion. And we won.
We attributed such a resounding victory to the people. After all, we represent the people in Parliament.
Pathetic excuse
When the home minister presented the motion for our necessary approval and endorsement, he, inter alia, delivered the following rhetoric - one who opposes the motion is deemed to condone the violent crimes. What a pathetic excuse!
I promptly stood up and duly asked the speaker to refer the minister to a committee of privilege pursuant to Order 36(12) of the Standing Orders for misleading the House.
Let me reiterate herein loud and clear that our vehement opposition to the aforementioned motion has nothing to do with condoning violent crimes.
Martin Luther King aptly said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
Needless to say, Sosma is a bad law. No, it is evil. It contains a slew of repressive and oppressive provisions so much so it seeks to help the police and the prosecution to secure a conviction in a trial at all cost.
There are too many provisions therein that are repugnant to human rights and human values.
When we were in government, the process of repealing or amending the said law was in the pipeline. Unfortunately, the infamous Sheraton Move spoiled many things.
In essence, Sosma undermines the doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution duly enshrined therein.
Despite being voted out, the unrepentant home minister is reported to have stated that he still intends to retable the motion.
I am not in a position to preempt what is going to happen. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. - Mkini
MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is Amanah's MP for Sepang and a former deputy minister in the prime minister's department for legal affairs.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---